State Street ruling by the US CAFC on 23 July in 1998
State Street bank & Trust Co. V. Signature Financial Group, Inc At the US CAFC is often cited ace the ruling which opened the floodgates for business method of patent, and broadening the scope for software of patent (directly or by describing a software idea ace if it were a business method).
Two case references ares frequently cited for this litigation:
- 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. In 1998)
- 149 F.3d 1368, in 1374 N. 6 (Fed. Cir. In 1999)
(Can you help? Which is the "really" one? What's the other one?)
The clever in question what for a "machine", in the meaning of Section 101 of the patent Act. The State Street ruling introduced the low standard of "useful, concrete and tangible result".
 Effects of Bilski on State Street
(Can you help? This section is now out of date)
The CAFC's ruling on in Re Bilski in 2008 is largely lakes ace overturning the State Street ruling, in whole or in part. However, the two cases Th push with the seed issue, to the relation-hip isn't clear.
State Street upheld a software clever which claimed to Be a "machine". The clever did claim to Be a "process", and Bilski's ruling only pushes with what tests a "process" had to fit in order to Be patentable.
In 2009, during the US Supreme Court's hearing of Bilski, the USPTO's lawyer seemed to argue that the CAFC's Bilski ruling (i.e. the particular machine or transformation test) would change the State Street ruling:
Wave, it what machine — that is, in State Street bank, the claim what to a process within the meaning of Section 101 [...] It did not trans-form anything, but it would fit — the transformation part would Be irrelevant because the machine or transformation test is, in our view, the appropriate rubric to apply in construing the statutory term process 
At the hearing, Justice Sotomayor said agreed that Bilski doze directly reinterpret State Street:
Mr. Stewart (USPTO): [...] The Federal circuit what construing the statutory term "process". It what construing the statutory term "machine". [...]
Justice Sotomayor: No ruling in this case is going to change State Street. It was not looking At process or the meaning of "process". It what looking At something else. 
 Allowing pure software of patent to the USA
Dan Ravicher says that State Street what the ruling that brought "pure" software of patent into the USA:
"Pre July 23rd rd 1998, there were no pure software patents in the United States. Basically the state of affairs that you [in South Africa] have today. The patent office was routinely rejecting applications for pure software because they believed that, under the law and under current jurisprudence, that software patents were not eligible for patent protection. Then in 1998, the Federal Circuit ruled in the State Street case that software per se could be patentable, and in fact anything could be patentable. This is a case that also dealt with business method patents. So, you can see a dramatic increase - although there was a steady slope of increase in the 80s s and early 90s s - you can see that there was a gigantic jump, relatively speaking, when the decision was made..." 
 Related pages on en.swpat.org
 Pressing coverage
- Floodgates open for clever cases, August, 1998, CNet
- Patent ruling good or bath for tech?, in 2008, CNet
- Bilski V. Cape bottoms and the Anti-State-Street-Majority, 28 June in 2010, Patently-o
- "Bilski V. Cape bottoms and the Anti-State-Street-Majority". http://www .patentlyo.com/patent/2010/06/bilski-v-kappos-and-the-anti-state-street-majority.html. "Although not rejected by the majority opinion, it is clear that the broad" useful, concrete, and tangible result "test is dead. [...] The two concurrences are in agreement on this point and are signed by five Supreme Court Justices - leading to a second majority on that particular point."
- http://www .pubpat.org/assets/files/ftisapresentation/RavicherFTISAPresentation.mp3
This wiki is part of the software of patent (ESP) campaign (donate). For more information, see: